<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>Hi Guys,</div><div><br></div>I think keeping the JSF and Portlet Bridge JSRs separate is fine. Historically we've had good communication between the two, but for JSF 2.2 I think we need to combine that with tight coordination and scheduling.<div><br></div><div>Best Regards to all,</div><div><br></div><div>Neil<br><div><br><div><div>On Feb 27, 2011, at 2:27 PM, Stephen Kenna wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><font size="2" face="sans-serif">Thanks for the explanation Mike. I
believe that 'remote components' is a worthwhile goal to put into 2.2.
I will inform our Portal/Portlet Container team so we can get as
many eyes looking at this new section as possible. </font>
<br>
<br><font size="2" face="sans-serif">Kito, </font>
<br><font size="2" face="sans-serif">Thanks for pulling in Neil and Wesley.
<br>
</font>
<br><font size="2" face="sans-serif">I think it still makes sense to keep
the JSF spec and the Portlet bridge spec separate. I just think that
we should make sure we produce, at the very least, a MR for the bridge
for any new content in JSF that affects it. I also think a future
bridge spec should have its own version instead of using the current version
of JSF and Portlet in its title. Ed's inclusion of a JSF 1.2 bridge
spec could be seen as confusing. </font>
<br>
<br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
Regards,<br>
Stephen<br>
</font><font size="3"><br>
</font><span><Mail Attachment.gif></span><font size="2" color="#6000a1" face="Tahoma"><b><br>
stephen kenna
ibm websphere architecture & development</b></font><font size="1" color="#808080" face="Tahoma"><br>
websphere platform web tier lead architect and jsf eg member | <u>address:</u>
4205 s miami blvd, durham, nc 27703 | <u>office:</u> m215/503<u><br>
email:</u> <a href="mailto:kenna@us.ibm.com">kenna@us.ibm.com</a> | <u>phone:</u> (919) 543-5593
| <u>t/l:</u> 441-5593 | <u>mobile:</u> (919) 454-1231
| <u>fax:</u> (919) 254-5250</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width="100%">
<tbody><tr valign="top">
<td><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif">From:</font>
</td><td><font size="1" face="sans-serif">Kito Mann <<a href="mailto:kito.mann@virtua.com">kito.mann@virtua.com</a>></font>
</td></tr><tr valign="top">
<td><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif">To:</font>
</td><td><font size="1" face="sans-serif"><a href="mailto:jsr-314-open@jcp.org">jsr-314-open@jcp.org</a></font>
</td></tr><tr>
<td valign="top"><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif">Cc:</font>
</td><td><font size="1" face="sans-serif">Neil Griffin <<a href="mailto:neil.griffin@tritonsvc.com">neil.griffin@tritonsvc.com</a>>,
Wesley Hales <<a href="mailto:whales@redhat.com">whales@redhat.com</a>></font>
</td></tr><tr valign="top">
<td><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif">Date:</font>
</td><td><font size="1" face="sans-serif">02/25/2011 12:21 PM</font>
</td></tr><tr valign="top">
<td><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif">Subject:</font>
</td><td><font size="1" face="sans-serif">Re: [jsr-314-open] Pre-JCP filed draft
of JSF 2.2 JSR</font>
</td></tr><tr valign="top">
<td><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif">Sent by:</font>
</td><td><font size="1" face="sans-serif"><a href="mailto:jsr-314-open-bounces@jcp.org">jsr-314-open-bounces@jcp.org</a></font></td></tr></tbody></table>
<br>
<hr noshade="">
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size="3">SK> Also, do we need to open a new JSR for a
JSF 2.x Portlet Bridge? I see<br>
SK> you have referred to the existing JSR 329 which was written
for JSF 1.2.<br>
<br>
Personally, I think we do need to open up such a JSR, and having IBM's<br>
support for such a JSR would be very helpful. However, what *I'm*<br>
trying to establish is support for a new JSR for JSF. A portlet JSR
is<br>
another matter entirely.</font>
<br>
<br><font size="3">Opening a JSR for the Portlet 2.0 Bridge for JSF 2.0 is
currently being looked at. However, as JSF 2.0 has already been out
for some time, its currently felt we would better support the community
by publishing a stable, working implementation of such a bridge based on
logical extensions/migration of JSR 329 before getting into the thick of
the JSR process which tends to be more methodical. To that end there
is now a 3.0.x Trunk in svn of the Apache MyFaces PortletBridge project
(where the JSR RI work is): </font><a href="https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/portlet-bridge/core/trunk_3.0.x" target="_blank"><font size="3" color="blue"><u>https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/portlet-bridge/core/trunk_3.0.x</u></font></a><font size="3">
. This code is stable enough for an alpha release in that it passes
the upgraded version of the 329 TCK and runs the various Ajax and CompositeComponent
samples I could find on the web/in Mojarra. I will be doing an official
(alpha) release shortly once I have clearance. But in the meantime,
interested parties can build/use it directly from this repository. FYI
... anyone wanting to do so may want to contact me as I have found bugs
in both Mojarra and MyFaces that prevent proper execution in a portlet
environment. I can suggest/provide various patches to get around
these problems.</font>
<br>
<br><font size="3">It's probably worthwhile bringing Wesley Hales (JBoss
Portlet Bridge) and Neil Griffin (portletfaces bridge) about this; I believe
they both support JSF 2 currently, but I'm not sure if they're using standard
extension points or not. </font>
<br><font size="3"><br>
Finally, since the question was asked here -- when proposed the Bridge
JSR a few years ago there was a discussion on whether it needed to be separated
from JSF or not. At the time we argued that it should be because
the nuances of the portlet environment needed the focus of that community
more than the JSF community. Now that the core of the bridge have
been defined, standardized, and proven to work in practice, its useful
to revisit this question. Given that the underlying portlet spec
is both stable and unlikely to change in the near or medium future, it
seems that the bridge is now pretty much only tied to future JSF enhancements.
Is it time to tie this work closer to the JSF standards work? If
so, what form do you think this should take?</font>
<br>
<br><font size="3">Given how slowly this process moves, I think it probably
makes sense to keep them separate, personally. We never get through all
of the things we'd like to for JSF all by itself..</font>
<br><font size="3"> </font>
<br><font size="3">-- Kito</font>
<br>
<br><font size="3"> -Mike-<br>
</font>
<br><font size="3">Ed<br>
</font>
<br>
<br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></body></html>